WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
Case No: 21/01334/FUL Proposal Description: Change of use of land from agricultural to Class C3 (Dwellinghouse). Development comprising the reshaping of the reservoir to provide for the construction of a floating five-bedroom dwellinghouse, with part subterranean garage, made pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 79(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019). To include: the formation of a new vehicular access from Abbotstone Road, the laying of a driveway and forecourt, engineering works for the purpose of landscaping, and the installation of two floating solar islands. Address: Land Off Abbotstone Road Fobdown Hampshire Parish, or Ward if within Old Alresford Winchester City: Applicants Name: Mr and Mrs Martin Pratt Case Officer: Verity Murphy Date Valid: 14 May 2021 Recommendation: Application Refused
Link to Planning Documents : https://planningapps.winchester.gov.uk/online- applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application
Pre Application Advice: Yes – applicant informed proposal would not be supported
© Crown Copyright and database rights Winchester City Council License 100019531
Case No: 21/01334/FUL
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE General Comments
The application is reported to Committee due to the number of support comments received contrary to the officer recommendation to refuse the application.
The application is also reported to Committee at the request of Old Alresford Parish Council, see Appendix A.
Site Description
The application site is not located within a defined settlement boundary. The site is situated on the western side of Abbotstone Road and access is currently gained from a gated access in the south-eastern corner of the plot. There is a mature hedgerow along the eastern edge of the site forming the boundary with Abbotstone Road.
There is currently a disused man-made reservoir on the site which was associated with the previous agricultural use. There is a residential dwelling to the north of the site which is also in the ownership of the applicant. There are public rights of way in close proximity to the application site.
Proposal
Change of use of land from agricultural to Class C3 (Dwellinghouse). Development comprising the reshaping of the reservoir to provide for the construction of a floating five- bedroom dwellinghouse, with part subterranean garage, made pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 79(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019). To include: the formation of a new vehicular access from Abbotstone Road, the laying of a driveway and forecourt, engineering works for the purpose of landscaping, and the installation of two floating solar islands.
Relevant Planning History
19/00500/FUL – Application Refused 03/03/2020 - The construction of a new dwelling of exceptional design quality in accordance with paragraph 79 of the NPPF
18/00163/PNACOU Pinglestone Barn, Fobdown Farm, Abbotstone Road - Change of use from agricultural building to dwelling house, prior approval approved 21.03.2018
00/01537/FUL Vitacress Salads Ltd Fobdown Farm, Abbotstone Road - Construction of reservoir and associated landscaping, permitted 07.08.2001.
Consultations
WCC Service Lead – Environment (Drainage): No objection to the application provided package treatment plant is installed to building regulations.
Hampshire County Council – Highways No objection to application subject to condition. No significant increase in traffic generation and visibility splays adequate. Case No: 21/01334/FUL
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
WCC Service Lead – Built Environment (Urban Design): The application is essentially the same as that made under reference 19/00500/FUL with additional information.
WCC Service Lead – Environment (Landscape): The application is essentially the same as that made under 19/00500/FUL with additional information. The comments concerning landscape are the same as those made before.
Natural England: Object to the application. Natural England requires further information from the applicant. An updated nitrogen budget using the methodology for package treatments plants and evidence of efficiency of the proposed Klargester system.
WCC Service Lead – Environment (Environmental Protection) No objection subject to condition.
Environment Agency No objection to application.
Representations:
Old Alresford Parish Council object to the application for the following reasons: • Outside of settlement boundaries • Does not meet any local community or employment needs • Does not meet any operational need • Does not involve the reuse or expansion of existing buildings • Does not relate to tourism
3 letters received objecting to the application for the following reasons: • Countryside location not appropriate • Conflicts with previous agricultural use • Would not enhance the surrounding area • Contrary to Policy MTRA 4 • Criteria of NPPF not met • Visual intrusion • Damage to natural habitats • Sustainability • Not sensitive to landscape
8 letters of support received. • Wildlife improvement • Bio-diversity net gains • Improvement to existing reservoir appearance • Visual enhancements • Safety improvements • Outstanding and innovative design • Eco –friendly energy solution • Enhancements to Wayfarers Walk PROW
Case No: 21/01334/FUL
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
Relevant Planning Policy:
Winchester Local Plan Part 1 – Joint Core Strategy DS1 - Development Strategy and Principles CP13 – High Quality Design MTRA 4 – Development in countryside CP16 – Biodiversity CP11 – Sustainable Low and Zero Carbon Built Development
Winchester District Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management and Site Allocations DM1 – Location of New Development Policy DM15 – Local Distinctiveness Policy DM16 – Site Design Criteria Policy DM17 – Site Development Principles Policy DM18 – Access and Parking Policy DM23 – Rural Character
National Planning Policy Framework 2021: Achieving Sustainable Development Decision-making Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Promoting sustainable transport Making effective use of land Achieving well-designed places Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
National Planning Policy Guidance Appropriate Assessment Climate Change Design: process and tools Flood risk and coastal change Light Pollution Natural Environment Open space, sports and recreation facilities, public rights of way and local green space
Supplementary Planning Guidance North Itchen Downs Landscape Character Assessment Area Winchester District High Quality Places Supplementary Planning Document High Quality Places SPD 2015
Village Design Statements None
Other Planning guidance National Design Guide 2019 Planning Officers Society Good Practice Guidance Note February 2020 Building Better Building Beautiful Commission Living With Beauty January 2020.
Case No: 21/01334/FUL
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE Planning Considerations
Principle of development Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires that applications for planning permissions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application site is not located within a defined settlement boundary and is therefore subject to policy MTRA 4 of WDLPP1. Policy MTRA 4 sets out several circumstances where development may be permitted in the countryside, however none of these apply in this instance as the proposal is for new development rather than conversion and involves market housing.
Local plan policies resist residential development in the countryside in line with the Spatial Strategy. The Local Plan is up to date and there is more than a five year housing supply.
It is important to note that the NPPF was revised during the application, and paragraph 79 has been replaced with paragraph 80. The NPPF, which provides overarching policy on decision making in the planning system, notes in Section 80 that planning decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside, unless one or more circumstances apply including:
80(e) the design is of exceptional quality, in that it:
- is truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and - would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
It is also important to note that there is no longer any reference to design that is innovative within the new paragraph 80, the refused application focussed on constructing an innovative dwelling rather than having a truly outstanding design.
The proposal this time is therefore assessed in respect of 80 (e) in respect of its outstanding design. The development does not fall under Schedule I or Schedule II of the 2017 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, therefore an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.
Isolated Dwelling
In order for the proposal to meet paragraph 80 of the NPPF, the new dwelling must be isolated. The case of Braintree DC v SSCLG 2017 is pertinent to this application as regard was given to a definition of what is 'isolated' within planning terms. It was held that the term 'isolated' is something which is standing apart or alone or detached or separate from other things or persons, unconnected with anything else, solitary.
There is an existing barn to the north of the site which has been reconstructed into a large residential dwelling. This dwelling is contained within the blue line on the location plan.
The existing dwelling and the proposed new dwelling would be located in close proximity to one another with clear views of both the buildings in the same context. Whilst the 'Water Lily House' is located outside the settlement boundary and is within the countryside, there are clear visual and physical links between this and the dwelling to the north, with it being located Case No: 21/01334/FUL
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE within the blue line of the application site. The proposal is not considered to be an isolated dwelling under the Braintree DC v SSCLG 2017 ruling, as it is not standing alone or unconnected with anything else.
The applicant, in the submitted planning statement, quotes the case of Bramshill v SSHCLG 2021 to demonstrate why they consider the proposal is isolated. However, in the case of Bramshill V SSHCLG, it was found that the decision-maker must consider "whether development would be physically isolated, in the sense of being isolated from a settlement. What is a "settlement" and whether the development would be "isolated" are both matters of planning judgment for the decision-maker on the facts of the particular case. It is important to add that there is no statutory definition of an isolated home, and therefore, each case will be considered individually and will be a matter of planning judgement for decision-maker to decide whether or not a dwelling is ‘isolated’.
In the case of Braintree DC v SSCLG 2017 it is stated that there is no definition of a settlement within the NPPF. There is no minimum number of dwellings or population, and there is no stipulation that a settlement has to have services of any specific kind. The application site is located on Abbotstone Road, which is characterised by sporadic residential developing leading up to Abbotstone. The new dwelling in this sense would not be unexpected in this location and would contribute to the cluster of development along Abbotstone Road. It is considered, therefore, having regard to the cases of Braintree DC v SSCLG and Bramshill v SSHCLG, that the dwelling would not be isolated as intended under paragraph 80 of the NPPF.
The NPPF expects decisions and policies to avoid isolated dwellings as this would run contrary to the principle of locating development sustainably and outside of a plan-led process. In addition, an isolated dwelling by its nature would normally appear out of context with its environment located as such where a dwelling would not normally be expected to be seen, thereby falling foul of countryside policies and intrinsically harming the countryside.
In this respect then, the choice of site is crucial to the success of designing a proposal in line with paragraph 80 of the NPPF. The exceptional dwellings that are granted planning permission nationally are those which are on sites which lend themselves very well to the siting of a dwelling therefore enabling a design of exceptional quality with a high quality contextual response to that site in terms of its design and appearance. To achieve a paragraph 80 dwelling on this site, the assessment and choice of site in the context of the nearby buildings and the defining characteristics of its landscape (explored further below) is considered to be very important in the assessment, regarding the design response as a contextual response in appearance and site design.
Paragraph 80(e) Taking each point in turn:
1. 80(e) the design is of exceptional quality, in that it:
- is truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas;
Of pertinence to this application is the previously refused application 19/00500/FUL – which sought permission for a very similar new dwelling under paragraph 79 of the NPPF. The
Case No: 21/01334/FUL
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE design of the dwelling is very similar to the previous application and only ‘refinements’ to the refused scheme have been made.
These very small alterations include:
- The house position on the water has been amended and the proposed dwelling is situated further eastwards on the reservoir, and the surface area of the reservoir has been increased. - The finished floor level and roof level of the proposal has been reduced - The overhangs on the roof of the courtyard have been removed and the junctions between the each component of the house have been simplified. - The landscape design has been simplified - The underground outbuilding has been reduced in size - The hulls of the house will be used as storage reservoirs.
The design of the dwelling was not considered to be outstanding under the previously refused application. The merits of this previous scheme focused on whether the new dwelling was innovative, as allowed previously under paragraph 79(e) of the NPPF. As innovation is no longer an option under the new paragraph 80, the dwelling must be truly outstanding in order to accord with this particular section of the NPPF.
In relation to the previously refused application, which is a material planning consideration of significant weight in the determination of this application, the design review panel (DRP) did not conclude that the design of the dwelling was outstanding. The DRP required more information to assure the quality of the proposed architecture and detailing, together with energy details to ensure a net zero energy requirement and the operability of underwater heat exchange system and floating solar technologies.
In relation to this proposal, having regard to the previous DRP comments, whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal has elements of high quality design, it is not considered that the design of the dwelling is outstanding. The concept of a floating house is not in itself considered to be an original and or outstanding design proposal. In addition, whilst it is commendable that the proposed dwelling would be self-sufficient and have a zero energy requirement, this is not considered to make the proposal truly outstanding and is not significant enough to justify allowing a new dwelling in the countryside.
The site chosen for this proposed paragraph 80 application is not considered to lend itself to having an isolated dwelling on it considering the context of the site and its surroundings.
This is an area where there are very limited opportunities to build houses on water nor has there been areas identified which are flooded and predicted to remain so as part of the concept which is being promoted as an investigation into future living. The proposal is considered to result in a significant spread of development entirely using metal cladding from timber plinth up to roof soffit and with fully glazed floor to ceiling elevations with a green roof. The appearance is intended to be a natural muted earthy tone so it integrates into the landscape. Such natural tones usually come from the natural materials found in the area and in this area the vernacular of red Hampshire brick is very apparent as are low key agricultural buildings of timber, steel clad walling and weathered roofs. Bronze metal is often associated with striking contemporary architecture and used artistically in mainly urban settings. It is therefore considered that the proposal does not respond to its site specific
Case No: 21/01334/FUL
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE context. The proposal is not considered to be truly outstanding as it will be incongruous within the surrounding area and not at all locally distinctive.
Under paragraph 80e, not only does the proposal need to be truly outstanding, it needs to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas. As stated above, there are very limited opportunities within the district to construct other floating houses and it is therefore not likely to be replicated elsewhere. The proposal is not considered to have any great impact on the future of house building; and as this a key element within the scope of paragraph 80e, it is not considered to accord with the stipulations of the NPPF.
It is acknowledged that the proposal differs slightly to the refused scheme through the introduction of minor alterations, however the proposal is not considered to offer any new planning considerations that would overcome the previous reasons for refusal or justification to allow a new dwelling in the countryside. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to be truly outstanding and would result in a new dwelling within the countryside for which there is no justification and it would fail to accord with the Spatial Strategy for Winchester District Policy MTRA4 of Winchester District Local Plan Part 1
2. 80e the design is of exceptional quality, in that it:
- would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
The immediate setting of the site and the defining characteristics of the landscape are therefore identified with the following assessment of the proposal in respect of how it enhances and is sensitive to what is identified.
The South Downs National Park is located almost 1km to the southwest of the site and has not been identified as within the Zone of Visual Influence in the LVIA. The proposed development would therefore most likely have negligible effects on the SDNP and these would be of minimal significance. Taking account of the National Park's purpose to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area, the landscape character, special qualities and visual amenity of the SDNP would be conserved. Therefore, the proposal complies with section 11a of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and policy CP19 of the Local Plan Part 1.
The site is not covered by any nature conservations designations but the nearby Candover Valley Meadows SINC, Candover Stream, River Arle, Solent and River Itchen are an SAC (Special Area of Conservation) and SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest). It is not considered that the proposal will result in any likely significant effects as a result of the design of the proposals, on the interest features of the SACs which are European protected sites under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and 2017 (Habitats Regulations). A nitrate calculation has been undertaken in respect of the Solent SPA and significant effect of new development on its eutrophication. The calculation identifies a deficit. Appropriate Assessment and mitigation measures are therefore unnecessary in respect of all SPAs.
The application site falls within the North Itchen Downs Character Area which is characterised by distinctive river valley topography with sloping valley sides and relatively narrow valley floor, located in in a chalk down land setting. The existing reservoir is not a natural body of water and was associated with an agricultural business which has now Case No: 21/01334/FUL
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE ceased. The existence, function and appearance of the reservoir is therefore visually associated with the buildings and fields of Fob Down Farm adjacent to the site, which is set out above in the initial section on isolation. It is considered that the proposed scheme is not an effective response to the site in respect of landscape context and that there is no justification to allow a new dwelling on a disused reservoir which in itself has a level of harm to the landscape qualities of the area, noting that this was not considered so significant as to warrant refusal of that permission especially in the light of the business need for the extraction.
Views from nearby footpaths Alresford 32 and 2 have been examined from landscape character impact and it is considered that the upper parts of the building would be seen through the gaps in vegetation from the section of footpath 32 where it turns south, and also from the section of path 2 near to Ox Drove Way.
It is acknowledged in this new submission that the dwelling will sit lower in the landscape due to the reduction in roof and floor height of the building. However, the proposed building is clearly not in a traditional agricultural style and would represent an incursion of built form into the open and undeveloped countryside. When travelling through the area, the landscape in the wider sense surrounding the site is experienced. A dwelling in itself or a building of this appearance would not be expected to appear on this site. It does not relate in its form or function to the former working farm character of the surrounding development and landscape or the defining characteristics of this part of the rural area and thus what is expected to be experienced, especially on foot. It is contended that this is harmful to what is distinctive to this part of Hampshire. A proposal in respect of NPPF paragraph 80 would be expected to provide a positive experience and one that meets ones expectations of the landscape and LPP2 DM23.
The proposal is therefore considered to visually harm the rural character of the area by introducing a new dwelling within the countryside, for which there is no justification. The proposal is contrary to Policy DM15 and DM23 of Winchester District Local Plan Part 2 as it would result in the introduction of incongruous features into the landscape which would have an unacceptable effect on the rural character of the area.
In continuing the consideration of the enhancement of its setting and respect for the characteristics of the area, the landscape officer previously has listed applicable Key Issues from the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) for the site as part of the North Itchen Downs Character Area including:
- Impact of intensive agricultural practices on aquifer and water courses… - Hedgerow and woodland neglect - Intrusive farm buildings - Potential biodiversity benefits arising from restoration of arable land to chalk downland
Applicable Strategies are also listed which would therefore be expected to be opportunities to be taken on this site by the proposal in accordance with Paragraph 80 e:
- Conserve and restore woodlands - Encourage replanting of neglected hedgerows - Conserve the open, unenclosed nature of the area - Restore biodiversity of arable farmland Case No: 21/01334/FUL
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE - Conserve the historic routes of the ox droves from agricultural change and development - Integrate new development in to the landscape with appropriate native planting - Conserve the narrow, rural character of lanes
The landscaping plan has been simplified compared to the previously refused scheme, however it is still not considered that there is adequate demonstration of how the above matters have been considered or opportunities have been taken by the proposal.
It is noted that there is still a large gravelled access track sweeping around the frontage of the site behind the hedge. To facilitate it, it will also require the removal of a large amount of hedge/scrub which will open the site up to views from Abbotstone Road which in the immediate context, is currently characterised by mature, established hedging with glimpsed views of the landscape beyond. The landscaping masterplan still shows a section of the access drive which will be developed into a forest garden, as stated in the previously refused application, forest gardens do not form part of the landscape character area. The proposed vehicular access track will lead to a large garage/outbuilding which is cut into the site, heavily retained using concrete and including a staircase down to a storage area.
Based on the proposed plans and limited information in respect of levels, there is considerable engineering work needed in order to undertake the works and to provide the access entrance and driveway. This in itself appears to be an overly engineered response to accessing the site and a conflict with the aim to enhance the landscape setting and by also providing such a very large outbuilding for incidental uses. Although the garage is proposed as subterranean, such buildings are rarely hidden from view and create unnatural landforms. Coupled with the loss of vegetation it demonstrates a lack of consideration for the landscape setting and failure to enhance it. It will create an urbanising effect within the site and will significantly detract from the open and verdant nature of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DM15, DM23 of Winchester District Local Plan Part 2 and NPPF paragraph 80. In respect of highways safety alone, it is considered that the vehicle movements can be safely accommodated by the proposed access based on additional traffic count information received in accordance with DM18.
The reliance of the end user and the scheme’s design on the accommodation of the car is also not considered to reflect the aims of the scheme which seeks to be a fully carbon neutral and self-sufficient dwelling. The level of car parking is considered to be excessive and will encourage a higher than average car ownership and vehicular trips to and from the site. This is further exacerbated by the unsustainable location of the development away from any public transport links. This is a key reason why the NPPF does not allow isolated dwellings, without an exceptional reason to do so. In this respect, the overall scheme is flawed as there is a dichotomy between the concept of the scheme and its built form and a conflict with the intention to be carbon neutral and respond to the climate emergency.
Furthermore, it is not understood how the proposal could enhance or be sensitive to its immediate landscaping setting in an area which is defined by open arable and chalk downland and one which has a strong agricultural history in the appearance of the built form in the area. These proposed elements are at odds with the defining landscape character and are considered to have an urbanising effect on the surrounding area introducing incongruous elements.
Case No: 21/01334/FUL
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE It is acknowledged that there are improvements to the biodiversity of the reservoir, with the most significant of these enhancements being the re-modelling of the reservoir to create multi-level vegetated banks with emergent and submerged aquatic vegetation. The enhancements include micro-habitats to be created, including marginal and marshy habitats, with the overall area able to support a range of invertebrates and amphibians, and provide a food source for bats and grass snake. It will also be designed to incorporate refugia suitable for white-clawed crayfish. However, whilst the appearance and ecology of the existing reservoir may be capable of being improved, all new developments in Winchester District are expected to enhance biodiversity in accordance with Local Plan Part One CP16 and therefore in itself this is not a reason to conclude that the proposal accords with paragraph 80 in respect of outstanding design.
In respect of the remodelling, the reservoir does not currently have a demonstratively intrusive or detrimental impact in the landscape and has been expressly granted planning permission. Apart from this feature there are no other obvious characteristics about the site which are having a negative impact in the area, to benefit from being redefined through the approval of a dwelling under paragraph 80 of NPPF.
The large spread of the metal clad dwelling, coupled with the uncharacteristic landscape features and hardstanding therefore proposes a scheme which is out of keeping with its context, thereby not enhancing the immediate setting and paying no regard to the sensitivities of the area. Ecology enhancements do not contribute to its outstanding design, but would be expected in line with the Development Plan. The proposal is not considered to accord with paragraph 80(e).
There are no new material issues raised in this application that outweigh the material harm identified by the Local Planning Authority in respect of the previous application and the assessment that the proposal is not of truly outstanding quality in accordance with paragraph 80 NPPF.
Highways Hampshire County Council have been consulted on the application and raise no objection to the proposal. It is not considered that the proposal would result in any significant additional traffic generation that would impact upon highway safety.
The application proposed a new site access from Abbotstone Road, visibility splays have been submitted with the application which demonstrate the that two vehicles can access and egress the site. The proposal accords with Policy DM18 of LPP2.
Equality Due regard should be given to the Equality Act 2010: Public Sector Equality Duty. Public bodies need to consciously think about the three aims of the Equality Duty as part of the process of decision-making. The weight given to the Equality Duty, compared to the other factors, will depend on how much that function affects discrimination, equality of opportunity and good relations and the extent of any disadvantage that needs to be addressed. The Local Planning Authority has given due regard to this duty and the considerations do not outweigh any matters in the exercise of our duty as statutory planning authority for the council.
Conclusion
Case No: 21/01334/FUL
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE The local planning authority has had full regards to all advice received from all consultees listed, including the Urban Design officer and Landscape Architect in respect of their written comments and further discussion.
The site lies outside any defined settlement whereby the house proposed is not in accordance with the LPP1 policy MTRA4 and the Spatial Strategy. There are no other material considerations that would outweigh the Development Plan. National planning policies (NPPF) seek to resist isolated housing development in the countryside unless it meets one of 5 defined circumstances. The applicant contends that criterion (e) of NPPF paragraph 80 applies and that the proposal is acceptable in accordance with this paragraph. In order to be acceptable within the terms of NPPF paragraph 80e the proposed design would need to be of exceptional quality by being truly outstanding and significantly enhancing its setting.
The longevity, sustainability, characteristics and location of the water source and use of this site as a concept for designing a floating house is not considered to meet the requirements of NPFF paragraph 80e as it is not an isolated dwelling, it is not truly outstanding, is not sensitive to, nor does it enhance its immediate landscape setting and the defining characteristics of the local area.
The Council can demonstrate an adequate supply of housing land, so NPPF paragraph 11(d) is not triggered. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the Spatial Strategy of the Winchester City Council Development Plan, does not accord with the following most relevant policies: DS1, MTRA 4 of Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 (2013), DM15 and DM23 of Winchester District Local Plan Part 2 (2017), The High Quality Places SPD and North Itchen Downs Character Assessment Area and Paragraph 80 e of The National Planning Policy Framework.
Recommendation
Application refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development is not considered to accord with NPFF Paragraph 80 (e) because:
The design is not of an exceptional quality in that it:
- is not truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, nor does it help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and
- it would not significantly enhance its immediate setting, and is not sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
The proposal therefore fails to accord with the Spatial Strategy of the Winchester City Council Development Plan, and does not accord with Policy MTRA 4 of Winchester District Local Plan Part 1, Policy DM15 and DM23 of Winchester District Local Plan Part 2, The High Quality Places SPD and the North Itchen Downs Landscape Character Area Assessment 2004 as it would result in the introduction of incongruous and alien features detracting from the open, rural and chalk downland nature to the significant detriment of the surrounding landscape.
Case No: 21/01334/FUL
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE 2. The proposal will result in a new dwelling within the Solent catchment area which will cause additional nitrates to be deposited into the Solent Special Protection Area. In the absence of mitigation, the proposal is therefore contrary to Regulations 63 and 64 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and LPP1 Policy CP16 as the proposal will have a significant detrimental impact on a European protected site though an increase in nitrate input.
Informatives:
1. The Local Planning Authority has taken account of the following development plan policies and proposals:-
Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 (2013): DS1, CP13, MTRA 4, CP16 Winchester District Local Plan Part 2 (2017): DM1, DM15, DM16, DM17, DM18, DM23 North Itchen Downs Landscape Character Assessment Area Winchester District High Quality Places Supplementary Planning Document Paragraph 80e of the NPPF
2. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the NPPF (July 2018) , Winchester City Council (WCC) take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals, working with applicants and agents to achieve the best solution. To this end WCC: - offer a pre-application advice service and, - update applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application, where possible suggesting alternative solutions.
Case No: 21/01334/FUL
WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE Appendix 1
Case No: 21/01334/FUL